Samuel Gezahegne

Addis Ababa Institute of Technology
School of Graduate Studies

School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
APPROXIMATE AND GRILLAGE ANALOGY METHODS OF

ANALYSIS OF RC T- AND BOX GIRDER BRIDGES -
COMPARATIVE STUDY,
A thesis submitted to the school of Graduate Studies in Partial fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering
By
Samuel Gezahegne
Advisor: Dr. Asnake Adamu
April, 2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology
School of Graduate Studies
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
APPROXIMATE AND GRILLAGE ANALOGY METHODS OF

ANALYSIS OF RC T- AND BOX GIRDER BRIDGES -
COMPARATIVE STUDY,
By
Samuel Gezahegne
April, 2016
Approved by Board of Examiners
Dr. Asnake Adamu _______________ ____________

Advisor Signature Date
Dr. Abreham Gebre _______________ ____________

Internal Examiner Signature Date
Dr. Shiferaw Taye _______________ ____________

External Examiner Signature Date
Dr. Agizew Nigussie _______________ ____________

Chairperson Signature Date
Declaration
I, the undersigned, declared that this thesis is my work and all sources of materials used for
the thesis have been duly acknowledged.
Name: Samuel Gezahegne.
Signature: _____________
Place: Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa Institute of Technology.
Date of Submission: April, 2016.

Acknowledgments
I am indebted to my advisor, Dr. Asnake Adamu, for his direction and support throughout my
graduate studies at the Addis Ababa University Institute of Technology. His interest in my
work provided me with the constant motivation needed to achieve my goal.
i
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................. i
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................. ii
List of Figures ...................................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ v
List of Notations .................................................................................................................. vi
Abstract .............................................................................................................................. vii
1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background............................................................................................................. 1
1.1.1 T-Girder Bridge Superstructure ........................................................................ 1
1.1.2 Box Girder Bridge Superstructure .................................................................... 2
1.2 Objectives and Scope of the study ........................................................................... 3
1.3 Outline of the Thesis ............................................................................................... 4
2 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................... 5
2.1 General Approach of Analysis................................................................................. 5
2.2 Approximate method of analysis ............................................................................. 5
2.3 Grillage analogy method of analysis...................................................................... 11
2.3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 11
2.3.2 Stiffness Method Applied to Grillage Analysis ............................................... 13
2.3.3 Transformation of Bridge Deck in to Equivalent Grillage............................... 18
2.3.4 Idealization of Physical Deck into Equivalent Grillage ................................... 19
2.3.5 Evaluation of Equivalent Elastic Properties .................................................... 22
2.3.6 Application of Loads, Analysis, Force Responses .......................................... 25
2.3.7 Interpretation of Results ................................................................................. 27
2.4 Multiple Presence Factor ....................................................................................... 27
3 NUMERICAL MODELING ........................................................................................ 29
3.1 General ................................................................................................................. 29
ii
3.2 Selection of Bridge Dimension .............................................................................. 29
3.2.1 Width of Bridge ............................................................................................. 29
3.2.2 Minimum Dimensions.................................................................................... 30
3.2.3 Design Depth of Superstructure...................................................................... 30
3.3 Approximate method of analysis ........................................................................... 32
3.4 Grillage analogy method using STAD. Pro program .............................................. 36
4 DISCUSSION ON NUMERICAL RESULTS .............................................................. 42
4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 42
4.2 Results from approximate method of analysis ....................................................... 42
4.2.1 Results of T-Girder Superstructures ............................................................... 42
4.2.2 Results of Box Girder Superstructures............................................................ 45
4.3 Results from grillage analogy method of analysis .................................................. 46
4.3.1 Results of T-Girder Superstructures ............................................................... 46
4.3.2 Results of Box Girder Superstructures............................................................ 51
4.4 Comparison Figures .............................................................................................. 54
4.5 Discussion of the results ........................................................................................ 62
4.5.1 Comparison of T-Girder Bridge of the two method ........................................ 62
4.5.2 Comparison of Box Girder Bridge of the two method .................................... 63
4.5.3 Diaphragm effect ........................................................................................... 65
5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ............................................................ 67
5.1 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 67
5.2 Recommendation .................................................................................................. 67
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 68
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1-1 Typical T-Girder Section for Two, Four and Six lanes Traffic, .......................... 2
Figure 1.1-2 Typical Box Girder Section for Two, Four and Six lanes Traffic, ...................... 3
Figure 2.3-1 Grillage Model ................................................................................................ 13
Figure 2.3-2 Global Axes and Degree of Freedom ............................................................... 15
Figure 2.3-3 Grid Elements with End Displacements........................................................... 15
Figure 2.3-4 Transformation of Stiffness Matrix.................................................................. 16
Figure 2.3-5 T-Girder Bridge and Grillage Lay-out ............................................................. 20
Figure 2.3-6 Grillage Arrangement in Skew Bridge, ............................................................ 21
Figure 2.3-7 Grid Lines for Multi-Cell Box-Girder Deck,.................................................... 22
Figure 2.3-8 Longitudinal Section of Box-Girder Deck, ...................................................... 24
Figure 2.3-9 Characteristic of the Design Truck .................................................................. 25
Figure 2.3-10 Load Positioned between Elements, .............................................................. 26
Figure 3.3-1 Typical Cross Section for 24m Bridge Span, ................................................... 32
Figure 3.3-2 Load Arrangement for Maximum Shear and Moment, ..................................... 35
Figure 3.4-1 Grillage Mesh and Types of its Member, ......................................................... 37
Figure 3.4-2 Type of member in transverse direction. .......................................................... 38
Figure 3.4-3 Type of member in longitudinal direction, ....................................................... 38
Figure 3.4-4 Section Property assignment in STAD. Pro software, ...................................... 39
Figure 3.4-5 Load assignment in STAD. Pro software. ........................................................ 40
Figure 3.4-6 Result of STAD. Pro software in Graphical Interface, ..................................... 40
Figure 3.4-7 Grillage Analogy Method Results with provision of two diaphragms, ............. 41
Figure 4.4-1 Comparison for 10.3m Bridge Width and 20m Bridge Span of RCTG, ............ 54
Figure 4.4-2 Comparison for 10.3m Bridge Width and 24m Bridge span of RCTG, ............ 55
Figure 4.4-8 Comparison for 19.4m Bridge Width and 30m Bridge Span of RCTG ............. 58
Figure 4.4-10 Comparison for 10.3m Bridge Width and 30m Bridge Span of RCBG,.......... 59
iv
Figure 4.5-1 Typical Load Distribution on Exterior Girder, ................................................. 65
List of Tables
Table 2.2-1 Deck Superstructures Type, ............................................................................... 7
Table 2.2-2 “L” for use in Live Load Distribution Factor Equations, ..................................... 7
Table 2.2-3 Distribution of Live Load per Lane for Moment in Interior Girder, ..................... 8
Table 2.2-4 Distribution of Live Loads per Lane for Moment in Exterior Girders, ................. 9
Table 2.2-5 Distribution of Live Load per Lane for Shear in Interior Girders,...................... 10
Table 2.2-6 Distribution of Live Load per Lane for Shear in Exterior Girders, .................... 10
Table 2.4-1 Multiple Presence Factor, ................................................................................. 28
Table 3.2-1 Bridge Width used in this study ........................................................................ 29
Table 3.2-2 Minimum Dimensions ...................................................................................... 30
Table 3.2-3 Traditional Minimum Depths for Constant Depth Superstructures, ................... 31
Table 3.3-1 Approximate (Distribution Factor) Method Results. ......................................... 36
Table 3.4-1 Flexural and Torsional Moment of Inertia of the section, .................................. 38
Table 4.5-1 Summary of Maximum Values for T-Girder, .................................................... 62
Table 4.5-2 Summary of Maximum Values for Box Girder, ................................................ 64
Table 4.5-3 Typical Diaphragm effect on Load Distribution as Compare to Two Diaphragm
Case for Exterior Girder of 26.4m Bridge Width and 30m Bridge Span, .............................. 66
v
List of Notations
g = Distribution Factor.
ERA = Ethiopian Roads Authority.
AACRA = Addis Ababa City Roads Authority.
AASHTO = American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
App. = Approximate.
Fig. = Figure.
Grill. = Grillage.
Diap. = Diaphragm.
1D = One Dimensional.
3D = Three Dimensional.
D.O.F = Degree of Freedom
RCTG = Reinforced Concrete T-Girder
RCBG = Reinforced Concrete Box Girder
vi
Abstract
Bridges are one part of the Road Infrastructures which needs care during design stages,
among which include analysis. The most common Bridge superstructures forms widely used
are RC T- and Box Girder types. To analyze such forms the most widely used method of
analysis is Approximate Method based on Distribution Factor concept. This method is
preferred due to its simplicity for use. This method has limitation for not considering stiffness
of components sufficiently and effect of provision of diaphragm on load distribution; these
parameters have great impact on load distribution between Girders. The result of this method
is also considered conservative as compared to more refined method of analysis. In this study,
the result obtained by this method and refined method of analysis (Grillage Analogy Method)
are investigated.
Using these methods, RC T- and Box Girder superstructures are analyzed, considering
different Traffic lanes and span length. This task involves examining the maximum Bending
Moment and Shear Force using the two numerical models. Furthermore, the effect of
Diaphragm on load distribution is also investigated.
This study provided useful information about the variation of Bending Moment, Shear Force
with respect to change in Traffic Lanes, Span Length and arrangement of Diaphragm. It is
concluded that the results obtained from Grillage analogy method are smaller than
approximate method, except for shear force of Interior Girder of T-Girder Bridge, which
gives slightly higher result where, the percentage differences varies from case to case. For all
other cases considered, approximate method gives conservative values. In addition, since
approximate method does not consider effect of diaphragm, provision of more number of
diaphragms has effect on load distribution is observed for T-Girder than Box Girder in
Grillage Analogy method.
Key words: T-Girder; Box Girder; Approximate Method (Distribution Factor Method);
Grillage Analogy Method; Flexural Moment of Inertia; Torsional Moment of Inertia;
Bending Moment; Shear Force; Vehicular Live Load; Traffic Lanes; Span Length
vii
Approximate and Grillage Analogy Methods of Analysis of RC T- and Box Girder Bridges –
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Bridge is one part of the road infrastructure which needs care during design stage and one of
the most challenging works during construction. Bridge construction in Ethiopia is rapidly
growing for the last fifteen years and the numbers and sizes of the bridges have continuously
increased. The common bridge forms widely used are RC T-Girder and Box Girder Bridge,
and, the selection between the two depends on the span length of the bridge. To analyze such
types, it is necessary to break the form in to more manageable sub forms that comprised of
different components. Sub forms include Beams (Girders), Deck Slab, Barrier system, Cross
Frames and Diaphragms. In general, the distribution of the loads throughout the components
requires equilibrium, compatibility, and constitutive relationships be maintained. To analyze
such forms, many methods are available where; one of this is approximate method of
analysis. It is developed by AASHTO and ERA and AACRA Design Manuals are also
adopting this method. Approximate method of analysis which makes use of distribution
factor concept were developed originally by Zokaie et al. (1991) and further investigated by
the team and developed by AASHTO as distribution factor concept. This concept is easy and
simple to use that makes it popular in Ethiopia, as the name also implies approximate, this
method has limitation for not considering stiffness of components and effect of diaphragm
explicitly. Hence, in the light of such effect a clear understanding of this method for the RC T
and Box Girder Bridge is desired.
1.1.1 T-Girder Bridge Superstructure

The T-Girder bridge superstructure consists of transversely reinforced slab decks which span
across to the longitudinal support girders. T-Girder Bridge is generally more economical for
span of 12 to 24m. The girder stem thickness usually varies from 35 to 55cm and is
controlled by the required horizontal spacing of the positive moment reinforcement.
Optimum spacing of longitudinal girder in transverse direction is typically between 1.8m to
3.0m for a minimum cost of formwork and structural materials. However, where vertical
supports for the formwork are difficult and expensive, girder spacing can be increased, [4].
1
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
T-Girder Bridge is usually used for a single span bridge, or non-continuous girders for multi
span bridge. ERA bridge design manual and AASHTO bridge design specification usually
recommends the number of girder to be provided should be minimum, to minimize the
material (cost). The overhang should preferably not exceed 30 to 35% of girder spacing.
Girder depth of the bridge may vary between 7-10% of the span length depending on the
number of girder used.
Figure 1.1-1 Typical T-Girder Section for Two, Four and Six lanes Traffic,
0.22
1.1.2 Box Girder Bridge Superstructure

The Box Girder bridge superstructure contains top deck, vertical web, and bottom slab are
often used for span of 20 to 40m. The vertical web thickness usually varies from 20 to 30cm
the high torsional strength of the box girder makes it particularly suitable for sharp curve
alignment, skewed piers and abutments, super elevation, and transitions such as interchange
ramp structures, [4].
Box Girder Bridge is difficult for formwork erection and demolishing and are used rarely
except the site needs larger span and the typical dimension of Box girder superstructure are
shown in the following figure.
2
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
Figure 1.1-2 Typical Box Girder Section for Two, Four and Six lanes Traffic,
1.2 Objectives and Scope of the study

The current study is about analysis comparison of T-Girder and Box Girder bridge
superstructures by approximate method and Grillage analogy method. The objective and
scope for the study are:
Literature review of the analysis method, research work on Reinforced concrete T and
Box girder superstructure according to AASHTO Bridge design specification and
ERA bridge design manual.
Develop grillage model for Analysis of T and Box girder bridges using STAD. Pro
2007 structural analysis software program.
Develop approximate method for T and Box girder using spread sheet (Excel) on
Microsoft office application.
Study and compare the result of the two analysis method of T and Box Girder Bridge.
3
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
The study is limited to analysis comparison using the two method of RC T and Box girder
superstructures, which have Two lanes, Four lanes and Six lanes Bridge width detail
dimension of bridge width is presented in section 3 as well as, in the above two typical
section figures, and Bridge span (length) of 20m and 24m for T-Girder Bridge, and 30m and
40m for Box Girder are considered. In addition, by increasing the span up to 30m of RC T
Girder with different diaphragm spacing is also studied for comparison reason. However,
skewness and curve are not considered in this study.
1.3 Outline of the Thesis

This thesis organized in to five sections, Section 1 is an introduction to the topic followed by
the objective and scope of the study. Literature review on the analysis methods on RC T and
Box Girder Bridge is presented in Section 2. Numerical Modeling for the two analysis
methods are described including selection bridge dimension and illustrative example using
the two numerical modeling are presented in Section 3. In Section 4, the comparison between
Approximate and Grillage analogy Methods of RC T Girder and Box Girder Bridges are
undertaken. Conclusion and Recommendation are presented in Section 5.
4
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 General Approach of Analysis

There are several methods available for the analysis of T-Girder and Box Girder bridges. In
each analysis method, the three-dimensional bridge superstructure is usually simplified by
means of assumptions in the geometry, materials and the relationship between its
components. To analyze these, it is essential to break the bridge superstructure in to smaller,
more manageable parts that are comprised of beams, deck slab, barrier system, cross frames
and diaphragms. The forces and deformation with in these parts are essential to determine the
size of the structures. In general, the transfer of loads on the superstructure components
requires equilibrium, compatibility, and constitutive relationship be satisfied. Many analysis
method are found now days which full fill the above requirements such as Approximate
method of analysis and Grillage analogy method. Generally approximate method is the most
commonly used analysis method in consulting firms found in Ethiopia. In this method the
spatial dimensionality of the system is reduced by using a concept of distribution factor. This
factor is established by analyzing the system with a refined method to establish the actions in
the girders. Next, the same load is applied to a single girder and 1D beam analysis is
performed. This method is recommended by AASHTO Bridge Design specification and ERA
bridge design manual. The other method used in modeling the bridge superstructures is
grillage analogy method. In this method the superstructure is converted in to a network of
skeletal members rigidly connected beams or nodes. The deformation at the two ends of the
beam element is related to bending and torsional moment through their bending and torsional
stiffness, [3&6]. A brief review of the two analytical methods i.e. approximate method of
analysis and Grillage analogy method are presented in the following section.
2.2 Approximate method of analysis

Approximate Method (Distribution Factor Method) sometimes known as Beam-Line Method,
where, the spatial dimensionality is a primary modeling assumption, and then the system is
modeled as 1D system. This is a simple model and is attractive for analysis. The primary
issue is how the load is distributed to the girder, which is traditionally done by using an
empirically determined distribution factor to transform the 3D system to a 1D system. Herein,
this procedure is called the beam-line (girder-line) method because only one girder is
5
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
considered as opposed to modeling the entire bridge as a single beam. This factor is
established by analyzing the system with a refined method to establish the actions in the
girders. Bending moment is used for illustration; the maximum moment at a critical location
is determined with an analytical or numerical method and is denoted as Mrefined. Next, the
same load is applied to a single girder and a 1D beam analysis is performed. The resulting
maximum moment is denoted as Mbeam. The distribution factor is defined as:
( )=
The background of AASHTO Bridge Design Specification distribution factor methods are
based on the above concept and employed for many years.
g = S/D
Where S is the girder spacing (m), and D is a constant depending on bridge type, the number
of lane loaded, and g may be thought of as the number of wheel lines carried per girder:
For example, for a concrete slab on a steel girder D = 5.5 was used for case where two or
more vehicles are present .Obviously, this is a simplistic formula and easy to apply, but as
expected, it does not always provide good estimates of the girder load in the full system and
this problem is minimized in recent AASHTO distribution factor method by incorporating
more number of parameters.
The recent distribution factor has the following limitation and used for bridges with fairly
regular geometry and is limited to system with, [3].
Constant cross section.

Number of girder is four or more.
Girders are parallel and have approximately the same stiffness.
Roadway part of the cantilever overhang does not exceed 910mm.
Plan curvature is small as required in AASHTO article A4.6.1.2.
Cross section is consistent with the sections as shown in Table 2.2-1.
6
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
Table 2.2-11 Deck Superstructures Type,
Supporting Components Type of Deck Typical Cross-Section

Cast-in-Place Concrete Monolithic concrete
Multicell Box
Cast-in-Place Concrete Tee Monolithic concrete

Beam
Table 2.2-22 “L” for use in Live Load Distribution Factor Equations,
Force Effect L (mm)
Positive Moment The length of the span for which moment

is being calculated
Shear The length of the span for which shear is

being calculated
The above table describes how the term L (length) is determined for use in live load
distribution factor. In rare occasion when the continuous span arrangement is such that an
interior span does not have any positive uniform load moment (i.e. no uniform load point of
contraflexure), the region of negative moment near the interior supports would be increased
to the centerline of the span, and the L used in determining the live load distribution factors
would be the average of the two adjacent spans.
1
Table 2.2-1 is from AASHTO Bridge Design Specification, Table A4.6.2.2.1-1
2
Table 2.2-2 is from AASHTO Bridge Design Specification, Table C4.6.2.2.1-1
7
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
Table 2.2-33 Distribution of Live Load per Lane for Moment in Interior Girder,
Type of Beams Applicable Distribution Factors Range of

Cross- Applicability
section
from
Table 2.2-
1
Concrete T-Beams e One Design Lane Loaded: 1100 S 4900

. . .
110 ts 300
0.06 + 6000 L 73000
4300
Nb 4
Two or More Design Lanes Loaded: 4x10 9 Kg 3x1012
. . .
0.075 +
2900
Use lesser of the values obtained Nb = 3
from the equation above with Nb = 3
or the lever rule
Multi cell Concrete d One Design Lane Loaded: 2100 S 4000
Box Beam 300 . 1 . 18 000 L
1.75 +
1100 73000
Nc 3
Two or More Design Lanes Loaded:
13 . 1 . If Nc>8 use Nc=8
430
S= Girder spacing (mm).
L= Span length (mm).
Kg= Longitudinal stiffness parameter (mm4).
Kg= n*(Ig+eg2 *A), where
,n= modular ration (Egirder/Edeck).
Ig= moment of inertia of the girder (mm4).
,eg= girder eccentricity, which is the distance from the girder centroid to the middle centroid
of the slab (mm).
3
Table 2.2-3 is from AASHTO Bridge Design Specification, Table 4.6.2.2.2b-1
8
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
A= girder area (mm2).
,d e= distance from the center of the exterior girder and the inside edge of the curb or barrier
(mm).
Nb= number of girder.
Nc= number of cell in the box girder.
Table 2.2-44 Distribution of Live Loads per Lane for Moment in Exterior Girders,
Type of Applicab One Design Two or More Range of

Superstructure le Cross- Lane Loaded Design Lanes Applicability
section Loaded
from
Table
2.2-1
Concrete T-Beams. e Lever Rule = -300 de
1700
= 0.77 +
2800
Use lesser of the Nb = 3

values obtained
from the equation
above with Nb = 3
or the lever rule
Cast-in-Place d = = We < S
Concrete Multi cell 4300 4300
Box
Or the provision for a whole-width
design specified in Article 4.6.2.2.1
4
Table 2.2-4 is from AASHTO Bridge Design Specification, Table 4.6.2.2.2d-1
9
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
Table 2.2-55 Distribution of Live Load per Lane for Shear in Interior Girders,

section
from
Table 2.2-
1
Concrete T-Beams e One Design Lane Loaded: 1100 S 4900

0.36 + 110 ts 300
7600 6000 L 73000
Nb 4
0.2 +
3600 10700
Use lever rule for both case Nb = 3

Cast-in-Place d One Design Lane Loaded: 1800 S 4000
Concrete Multi cell 6000 L 73000
. .
Box Beam 890 d 2800
2900 Nc 3
. .
2200
Table 2.2-66 Distribution of Live Load per Lane for Shear in Exterior Girders,

section
from
Table 2.2-
1
Concrete T-Beams e One Design Lane Loaded: -300 de 1700
Use lever rule

=
= 0.6 +
3000
5
Table 2.2-5 is from AASHTO Bridge Design Specification, Table 4.6.2.2.3a-1
6
Table 2.2-6 is from AASHTO Bridge Design Specification, Table 4.6.2.2.3b-1
10
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
section
from
Table 2.2-
1
Use lever rule for both case Nb = 3

Cast-in-Place d One Design Lane Loaded: -600 de 1500
Concrete Multi cell
Box Beam Use lever rule
= 0.64 +
3800
2.3 Grillage analogy method of analysis
2.3.1 Introduction
One of the best mathematical models for the deck is thin plate that may be modeled with the
biharmonic equation (Timoshenko and Woinowsky Kreiger, 1959; Ugural, 1981):
)
= +2 + = (2.1)
Where w = vertical translation
x = transverse coordinate
y = longitudinal coordinate
p = vertical load
D = plate rigidity, equal to
=
12(1 )
Where v = Poisson ratio
t = plate thickness
11
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
E = modulus of elasticity
Equation 2.1 is for an isotropic (same properties in all directions) slab. The development of
Eq. 2.1 is based on several key assumptions i.e.
The material behaves linearly elastically.

The strain profile is linear.
The plate is isotropic.
The vertical stresses due to the applied load are neglected.
The deformations are small relative to the dimension of the plate.
Closed form solution for the above equation is limited to case that is based on simplified
boundary condition and loads. Thus, approximate techniques or numerical models are used
for the solution the most common methods is Grillage analogy method.
Consider the first term only of Eq. 2.1, then becomes
( )
= (2.2)
This is the same as the mathematical model for a beam. Now neglect only the middle term of
Eq. 2.1
( )
+ = (2.3)
This is the mathematical model for a plate system that has no torsional stiffness or associated
torsional actions. In practical sense such systems do not exist. However, this type of system
would be similar to modeling a plate with a series of crossing beams where one element sits
on top of the other as shown in Figure 2.3-1(a) and (b). Consider the grillage joint shown in
Figure 2.3-1(c). Here, the joint is continuous for rotation in all direction, i.e. the
displacements of the joint is defined with the three displacements (degree of freedom) shown
in Figure 2.3-1(d), which includes vertical translation and two rotations. This type of joint, in
combination with elements that have both flexural and torsional stiffness, is more like the
continuum. This type of numerical model is called a grillage, [3].
12
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
Figure 2.3-1 Grillage Model

(a) Grillage model, (b) crossing with translational continuity, (c) crossing with translational
and rotational continuity, and (d) degree of freedom in grillage modeling.
2.3.2 Stiffness Method Applied to Grillage Analysis
2.3.2.1 Introduction
The bridge deck structure may be considered as an assembly of structural members connected
together at discrete nodes forming a grid, the deformations and forces at nodes are inter-
related by corresponding stiffness. In order to satisfy the equilibrium and compatibility
conditions at each node, a large number of simultaneous equations will result and the manual
solution of these may be difficult, however, using matrix method of structural analysis as a
major approach, it becomes possible to obtain the solution, [2].
13
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
2.3.2.2 Matrix method of structural analysis
For an elastic structure, the action P (forces and moments) and displacement D (translations
and rotations) are directly related as
{P}= [K] {D} (2.4)
Where [K] is the stiffness matrix of the structure and is defined as the action required to
produce a unit displacement. This is known as stiffness method (displacement method) in this
method the redundant structure is converted in to fully restrained structure by locking of
every joint and support. The solution of the problem then consists in finding the values of the
displacement which must be applied to all joints and supports to restore equilibrium
conditions at the joints. The unknowns are, therefore, kinematic unknowns.
The stiffness method will be used in the analysis of bridge deck by grillage analogy based on
certain assumptions.
Hooke’s law applies-leading to the principle of superposition.

Small deformation theory holds true.
Shear deformation can be ignored.
2.3.2.3 Degrees Of Freedom

The Degree of Freedom (D.O.F) for structure is the independent deformations which define
the deformed shape of the structure completely. In general, any structure has six degrees of
freedom at a node. Depending on the significance of a deformation, in a particular type of
structure form, some of the above degree of freedom can be ignored. Thus, the degrees of
freedom in the case of grid are reduced to three at each node. These are translation
perpendicular to the plane of grid and rotations about two orthogonal axes lying in the plane
of the grid as shown in Figure. 2.3-2, [2].
14
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
Figure 2.3-2 Global Axes and Degree of Freedom
2.3.2.4 Member Stiffness Matrix

Consider a grid member in Figure. 2.3-3 that are fully restrained at ends j and k. member
stiffness consist of reaction exerted at the member ends by the restraints when unit
deformations (one translation and two rotations) are imposed at each end of the member in
turn.
Figure 2.3-3 Grid Elements with End Displacements
The stiffness matrix [K] for a grid member is of six by six matrixes and each column in the
matrix represents the actions caused by the corresponding unit displacement.
0
0 0 0 0
0
[ ]= (2.5)
0 0 0
15
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
The stiffness matrix in (Eq. 2.5) for a grid is in terms of local degree of freedom, which is
different for different members meeting at a joint. Since the equilibrium at a joint is to be
satisfied, taking in to account the end actions of all members meeting at that joint together
with the external forces if any, a common reference is essential. This is provided by global
degree of freedoms is needed. This relationship is obtained in terms of a matrix known as
transformation matrix, [2].
Figure 2.3-4 Transformation of Stiffness Matrix

Consider a grid member 1-2 in Fig. 2.3-4 with axes Xm and Ym. The relation between the
deformations at node 1 in the original direction and in the direction of global axes X and Y is
shown. These deformations are related (Eq. 2.6) with the help of a 3x3 rotation matrix [ ] in
terms of direction cosines. Now, local member deformations can be related to global member
deformations as given in Eq. 2.7.
1 0 0
[ ]= 0 cos sin (2.6)
sin cos
16
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
,
1 0 0
,
0 cos sin
,
sin cos
[ ]= = ,
1 0 0
,
0 cos sin
,
sin cos
Or {d m} = [T] {d’m} (2.7)
Where {d m} and {d’m} are local and global member deformation vectors respectively and [T]
is a 6x6 transformation matrix derived from the rotation matrix [ ] such that
[ ]= 0
(2.8)
0
Similarly,
{Pm} = [T] {P’m} (2.9)
{P’m} = [T]T {Pm} (2.10)
{Pm} = [Km] {d m} (2.11)
{P’m} = [K’m] {d’m} (2.12)
Substituting for {Pm} in equation 2.10 from equation 2.11 gives,
{P’m} = [T]T [Km] [T] {d’m} (2.13)
Thus from equation 2.13 above,
{K’ m} = [T]T [Km] [T] (2.13)
2.3.2.5 Assembly of structure stiffness matrix

The member stiffness gives the relation between actions and deformations of a single
member and satisfies member constitutive laws. But to satisfy equilibrium condition at any
joint, we have to consider assemblage of the entire member meeting at that joint. The
17
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
structure stiffness matrix element satisfying the joint equilibrium can be obtained by an
assembly of member stiffness matrix elements.
)
(2.14)
Where [Kj] is the assembled structure stiffness matrix corresponding to jth degree of freedom
)
and ] is the corresponding term of ith member stiffness matrix.
The stability of the structure is now considered by introducing the boundary conditions.
(2.15)
Where [KPP], [KPR], [KTPR] and [KRR] are portioned sub matrices and {DP} and {DR} are free
and restrained displacement vectors respectively. {P} is the external load vector and {R} is
the reaction vector.
From Eq.2.15 we can write.
[KPP] {DP} + [KPR] {DR} = {P} (2.16)
[KPR]T {DP} + [KRR] {DR} = {R} (2.17)
The solution of the above equation will determine the deformation vector {DP} and substitute
in to equation (2.17) to get the reaction. A large number of simultaneous equations will result
depending up on the size of the grid chosen and they are to be solved in an efficient manner
utilizing the minimum computer time, [2].
2.3.3 Transformation of Bridge Deck in to Equivalent Grillage
When a bridge deck is analyzed by the method of Grillage analogy, there are essential five
steps to be followed for obtaining design responses:
Idealization of physical deck into equivalent grillage.

Evaluation of equivalent elastic inertias of members of grillage.
Application and transfer of loads to various nodes of grillage.
Determination of force responses and design envelopes and
Interpretation of results
18
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
2.3.4 Idealization of Physical Deck into Equivalent Grillage
The method of grillage analysis involves the idealization of the bridge deck as a plane
grillage of discrete inter-connected beams. This is the first important steps to be taken by the
designer and needs utmost care and understanding of the structural behavior of the bridge
decks
2.3.4.1 Guidelines for grillage Lay-out

Because of many types of deck shape and support condition, it is difficult to adopt hard and
fast rules for choosing a grillage lay-out of the actual structure. Some basic guidelines
regarding the location, direction, number and spacing of the longitudinal and transverse grid
lines forming the idealized grillage mesh are described.
2.3.4.2 Location and Direction of Grid Lines

Grid lines are to be used along line of strength. In the longitudinal direction, these should be
along the center line of girders, edge beams etc. Where isolated bearings are adopted, the grid
lines are also to be chosen along the lines joining the center of bearings. In transverse
direction, the grid lines are to be adopted, one at each end connecting the center of bearings
and along the center lines of transverse beams.
2.3.4.3 Number and Spacing of Grid Lines

Whenever possible, an odd number of longitudinal and transverse grid lines are to be
adopted. The minimum number of longitudinal grid lines may be three and the minimum
number of transverse grid lines per span may be five. The ratio of spacing of transverse grid
lines to those of longitudinal grid lines may be chosen between 1.0 and 2.0 this ratio should
also reflect the span-width ratio of the bridge. Thus, for a short span and wide bridge it
should be close to 1.0 and for long span and narrow bridge this ratio may close to 2.0. It may
be noted that with an increase in number of grid lines, the accuracy of analysis increase, [2].
2.3.4.4 Grillage Idealization of T-Girder Bridge

The logical choice of longitudinal grid lines for T-Girder is to make them coincident with the
center lines of physical girder and these longitudinal members are given the properties of the
girders plus associated portions of the slab, which they represent. Additional grid lines
between physical girders may also be set in order to improve the accuracy of the result. Edge
grid lines may be provided at the edges of the deck or at suitable distance from the edge.
19
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
When intermediate cross-girders exist in the actual deck, the transverse grid lines represent
the properties of cross girders and associated deck slabs. The grid lines are set-in along the
center lines of cross-girders. When there is a diaphragm over the support in the actual deck,
the grid lines coinciding with these diaphragms should also be placed, [2].
Figure 2.3-5 T-Girder Bridge and Grillage Lay-out

When no intermediate diaphragms are provided, the transverse medium i.e. deck slab is
conceptually broken into a number of transverse strips and each strip is replaced by a grid
line. The spacing of transverse grid lines is somewhat arbitrary but about 1/8 of effective span
is generally convenient. As a guideline, it is recommended that the ratio of spacing of
transverse and longitudinal grid lines be kept between 1 and 2 and the total number of lines
be odd. This spacing ratio may also reflect the span-width ration of the deck. Therefore, for
square and wider decks, the ratio can be kept as 1 and for long and narrow decks it can
approach to 2. The transverse grid lines are also placed at abutments joining the center of
bearings. A minimum of seven transverse grid lines are recommended, including end grid
20
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
lines. It is advisable to align the transverse grid lines normal to the longitudinal lines
wherever cross-girders do not exist. It should also be noted that the transverse grid lines are
extended up to the extreme longitudinal grid lines.
In skew bridge with small skew angle less than 15 degree, the transverse grid lines are kept
parallel to the support line as shown in Fig. 2.3-6(a) as in the case of right bridge. In skew
bridges with higher skew angle, the transverse grid lines are kept perpendicular to the girder
as shown in Fig. 2.3-6(b)
Figure 2.3-6 Grillage Arrangement in Skew Bridge,
2.3.4.5 Grillage Idealization of Box-Girder Bridge

Idealization of box-girder Bridge is similar to T-girder Bridge but there is a behavioral
difference between them. The analysis of box-girder Bridge is associated with special
problems of shear deformations (shear lag) due to usually wide flanges of the deck and
distortions of the cells, if sufficient numbers of intermediate transverse diaphragms are not
provided. The method is to be adopted where the effects of shear deformations and cell-
distortions are negligible and could be ignored. The method is most appropriate for multi-cell
rectangular box-girder decks.
21
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
Figure 2.3-7 Grid Lines for Multi-Cell Box-Girder Deck,

Longitudinal grid lines are usually placed coincident with webs of the actual structure (Fig.
2.3-7). Additional longitudinal grid lines are located along the edge of cantilevers with
nominal stiffness for the convenience of analysis.
The transverse medium consisting of top and bottom slabs only (with no diaphragms), is
represented by equally spaced transverse grid lines along the span. The spacing and number
of grid lines are similar to as adopted for T-Girder Bridge. If the deck is having diaphragms,
the transverse grid lines are placed along each diaphragm including at supports. Additional
grid lines representing the top and bottom slabs are placed in between the diaphragms, if
needed, to meet the minimum requirements of transverse grid lines. A closer spacing of
transverse grid lines will result in more continues structural behavior and will provide greater
details of responses, [2].
2.3.5 Evaluation of Equivalent Elastic Properties

After the actual bridge structure is simulated in to equivalent grillage, consisting of
longitudinal and transverse grid lines meeting at discrete nodes, the second important step in
grillage analogy method is to assign appropriate elastic properties i.e. flexural and torsional
stiffness to each member of the idealized grillage. This needs the computation of equivalent
flexural moment of inertia I and torsional inertia J for the member of the grillage mesh. This
is accomplished by considering isolated sections of the deck as if they are individual beams
and the inertias are calculated for each section and allotted to the corresponding grillage
beams representing that section.
22
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
2.3.5.1 Flexural Moment of Inertia, I
The computation of flexural moment of inertia I of different geometrical shapes is straight
forward. However, in beams having T and Box sections where slab is cast monolithically
with the web of the beam, effective flange width of the associated slab is to be considered.
2.3.5.2 Torsional Inertia, J

The torsional inertia J, often known as the Saint-Venant torsion constant, is generally not a
simple geometrical property of the cross-section as the case with flexural moment of inertia I
and needs careful consideration.
Saint-Venant derived an approximate expression for computing the torsional inertia J, of

open sections which is applicable to all cross-sectional shape without having reentrant
corners. The expression is,
= (2.18)
Where A is the area of cross-section and Ip is the polar moment of inertia. For a rectangular
of sides b and d, above expression reduce to,
3
= (2.19)
10( + )
In the case of a thin rectangle where b > 5d, the J value is more accurately given by
= (2.20)
3
a. Flexural and torsional inertia of grillage member of T-Girder
T-Girder deck consists of a number of beams spanning longitudinally between abutments

with a thin slab spanning transversely across the top. The thin slabs can be thought of as
flanges of T-beams. When such T-beams bend, the flanges are subjected to flexural stresses.
An element of the flange away from the rib or stem of the beam has less stress than the one
directly over the rib due to shear deformation of the flange. Shear deformation relieves some
amount of compressive stress in more distant elements. This phenomenon is known as shear
lag. The variation of compressive stress across the width of flange is accounted for by
considering the effective width of flange.
23
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
For the purpose of calculation of flexural and torsional inertias, the effective width of slab, to
function as the compression flange of Interior-Girder or Exterior-Girder is taken as detailed
below.
I. In case Interior Girders, the effective flange width may be taken as the least of:
One-quarter of the effective span length;
12 times the average depth of the slab, plus the greater of web thickness or
one-half the width of the top flange of the girder; or
The average spacing of adjacent beams.
II. In case Exterior Girders, the effective flange width may be taken as one-half the
effective width of the adjacent interior beam, plus the least of:
One-eighth of the effective span length;
6 times the average depth of the slab, plus the greater of one-half the web
thickness or one-quarter of the width of top flange of the basic girder, or
The width of the overhang, [1&6].
Once the effective width of slab acting with the beam is decided, the deck is conceptually
divided in to number of beams as the case may be.
b. Flexural and Torsional Inertia of Grillage Member of Box-Girder.
In the box-girder deck having longitudinal section as shown Figure below, the top and bottom
slab flex in unison about their common center of gravity. The moment of inertia of transverse
grillage per unit width, it, is calculated about the common centroid.
Figure 2.3-8 Longitudinal Section of Box-Girder Deck,
24
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
(2.21)
Since and ( ) , we get
= (2.22)
If the transverse grillage members also include a diaphragm, as at ‘A’, (Fig. 2.3-8) the inertia
should be calculated including the diaphragm.
2.3.6 Application of Loads, Analysis, Force Responses
In this part discusses identification of panels in which the wheel loads of a vehicular loading
system fall and transfer of loads to nodes of grillage in the form of equivalent nodal loads.
The analysis of grillage is then carried out and response envelopes and the interpretation of
results are discussed.
2.3.6.2 Evaluation and Application of Loads

The main live loading on Highway Bridge is of the vehicles moving on it, Ethiopian Road
Authority (ERA) Bridge Design Manual recommends using HL-93 loading which is
Equivalent to AASHTO loading.
Figure 2.3-9 Characteristic of the Design Truck
The wheel load of this hypothetical vehicular loading will be either in the panels formed by
the longitudinal and transverse grid lines, or on the nodes. The wheel loads falling in the
25
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
panels are to be transferred to the surrounding nodes of the panels, the easiest approach in
this case is to add another grillage line under the load called sub grillage as shown in Fig. 2.3-
10. An alternative to this is to refine the mesh to a point simple beam nodal load assignments
are viable because the fixed-end torsion and bending moment are relatively small.
In order to obtain the maximum response resultant for the design, different positions of each
type of loading system are to be tried on the bridge deck, [2].
2.3.6.3 Identification of Panels in the Grillage

When longitudinal and transverse members of the grillage cross each other, they form panels
and the grillage is therefore divided in to number of such panels. All the wheels of the
vehicular loading system may not come directly on the nodes of the grid but usually majority
of the wheels fall inside the panels. These wheel loads acting on the panels are to be
transferred to the nodes forming the panel, before the grid is analyzed by the grillage analogy.
2.3.6.4 Transfer of Vehicular Load to the Nodes

The grillage analysis requires that loads be transferred to the corresponding nodes in the form
of equivalent loads. These equivalent nodal loads consist of vertical shear and moments can
be computed by assuming that the panel between the adjacent grillage elements is fixed at its
edges, these are, for those loads which are applied within the panel.
Figure 2.3-10 Load Positioned between Elements,
The transfer of concentrated wheel load lying in the panel of the grillage is carried out in two
steps. First the load is distributed along the direction parallel to transverse grid lines and then
these forces are transferred to the adjacent nodes of the longitudinal grid lines.
26
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
2.3.6.5 Force Responses
After the loads are transferred to the nodes of the grillage in the form of equivalent forces, the
grillage may be analyzed to determine nodal deformation and member forces. The analysis
result yields nodal deformations i.e. deflection, slope and rotation at each end of the member.
The shear force for the member, the bending moments at the two ends of the member, the
torsional moment in a member and reactions at the supported nodes are the usual output.
However, these outputs can be modified and more details are possible. For the design of any
bridge structure we need the envelope diagrams of various responses on it. The envelope
diagram is the response diagrams drawn along the longitudinal grid lines with the largest
values of responses picked up under vehicular load, [2].
2.3.7 Interpretation of Results

The output or the result obtained from the analysis of grillage consists of vertical deflection
and X and Y rotations of each node, shear force and torsional moment of each beam element,
bending moments at the two ends of each beam element and reaction at each support.
Since the deck has been initially idealized as a grillage and the analysis has been performed
on the idealized grid, the results may sometimes need modifications and proper
interpretations before they are finally used in design some of the important interpretation of
the output and its modification due to local effects are discussed below.
The analysis will give positive or negative values for various force response with respect to
each beam element and due care should be taken to adhere to the sign convention adopted in
the computer program.
When a grillage member continues across a node, the value of moment at one end and other
end of adjacent member in continuation will be usually different. This is due to torsional
moments in the members framing in other direction to deal with such stepping or saw tooth in
the moment value along a grid line at nodes, these two moments are averaged this also
similar case for torque, [2].
2.4 Multiple Presence Factor

Truck will be present in adjacent lane on roadways with multiple design lanes, but it is
unlikely that three adjacent lanes will be loaded simultaneously with the heavy loads.
Therefore, adjustments in the design loads are necessary. To account for this effect, ERA
Bridge Design manual provide an adjustment factor for the multiple presence.
27
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
Table 2.4-1 Multiple Presence Factor,
Number of Design Lanes Multiple Presence Factor

1 1.2
2 1
3 0.85
More than 3 0.65
Multiple Presence factor are implicitly included in approximate method of analysis, [1&3].
Therefore no need applying for this analysis method. However, in Grillage analogy method
the software output are multiplied by these factors throughout this thesis.
28
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
3 NUMERICAL MODELING
3.1 General
The two analysis method for analyzing RC T-Girder and Box Girder bridge superstructures
as mentioned earlier in section 2. However, from the two analysis method, Grillage analogy
method is considered to be powerful and flexible method. Although the 2D grillage analogy
method is most involved and time consuming, it is still general and comprehensive in
determining the structural response. The other method which is known as approximate
method is recommended by AASHTO Bridge Design Specification and ERA bridge design
manual, is the most commonly used method due to its simplicity but it has limited in scope
and applicability. Due to recent development in computer technology, many frame analysis
software can perform using grillage analogy method.
In the current research, both T and Box Girder Bridge are modeled using the two analysis
method. In this section, a general description of the two analysis method next followed by
selection of bridge dimension as per ERA Bridge Design Manual requirement that was
utilized throughout this study for numerical modeling and finally illustrative example using
approximate and grillage analogy method are presented.
3.2 Selection of Bridge Dimension
3.2.1 Width of Bridge

The width of the bridge should correspond with the roadway or carriageway width as
determined according to the ERA Geometric Design Manual. The width is to be measured
between the inside of the railings or the curbs.
Total width of bridge is defined as the distance between the inside of the outer railings
including walkways, median and similar.
Table 3.2-1 Bridge Width used in this study
Application Carriageway Median Walkway Total Width

(m)
Two-lanes 7.30 - 2*1.5 10.30
Four-Lanes 14.00 0.4 2*2.5 19.40
Six-Lanes 21.00 0.4 2*2.5 26.40
29
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
3.2.2 Minimum Dimensions
The minimum dimensions shall be used in bridge design and construction, [1&6].
Table 3.2-2 Minimum Dimensions
Type of Structures Dimension

Concrete deck depth, excluding any provision for grinding and sacrificial 175 mm
surface
Concrete deck for pedestrians bridge 150 mm
3.2.3 Design Depth of Superstructure

Design depth of superstructure is the thickness of the superstructure excluding the pavement
thickness. Normally it will be measured in middle of the span. The design depth is a very
important parameter for the construction work.
Recommended dimensions for cast-in-place Box and T-beams are:
The thickness of top flanges serving as deck slab not less than either:
Same as for bridge decks listed in Table 3.2-2.

Not less than 5% of the clear span between fillets, haunches, or webs, unless
transverse ribs at spacing equal to the clear span are used.
And for the bottom flange thickness not less than either:
140 mm,
1/16 of the distance between fillets or webs of non prestressed girders and beams,
or
1/30th of the clear span between fillets, haunches or webs for prestressed girders,
unless transverse ribs at spacing equal to the clear span are used, [1&6].
The thickness of Webs (Girder) shall be determined by requirements for shear, torsion,
concrete cover and placement of concrete. For adequate field placement and consolidation of
concrete, usually a minimum web thickness of 200 mm is needed for webs without
prestressing ducts. For girders over about 2.4 m in depth, the above dimensions should be
increased to compensate for the increased difficulty of concrete placement, [1&6].
30
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
Table 3.2-37 Traditional Minimum Depths for Constant Depth Superstructures,
Superstructure Minimum Depth (Including Deck)
When variable depth members are used,

values may be adjusted to account for
changes in relative stiffness of positive and
negative moment sections.
Material Type Simple Spans Continuous Spans
Reinforced Concrete Slab with main 1.2( + 3000) + 3000

165
reinforcement 30 30
parallel to traffic
T-Beams 0.070L 0.065L
Box Beams 0.060L 0.055L
7
Table 3.2-7 is from AASHTO Bridge Design Specification, Table A2.5.2.6.3-1
31
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
3.3 Approximate method of analysis
In this section illustrative analysis is presented considering 10.3m bridge width and 24m
bridge span (length) as shown on the typical section below, using Approximate Method.
Figure 3.3-1 Typical Cross Section for 24m Bridge Span,
Determine the AASHTO distribution factor for bridge shown in the above typical section.
The system dimension and properties are as follows:
Girder spacing, S= 2.81m
Span length, L= 24.6m
Top slab thickness, ts= 0.22m
Top slab modulus of elasticity, Es= 25GPa
Girder modulus of elasticity, Eg= 25GPa
Modular ratio, n= Es/Eg= 1
Girder area, Ag= (1.75m-0.22m)*0.40m= 0.612m2
Girder moment of inertia, Ig= (1/12)*0.40m*(1.75m-0.22m)3 = 0.119385m4
Girder eccentricity, eg= 1.75m-(0.22m/2)-((1.75m-0.22m)/2) = 0.875m
Stiffness parameter, Kg = n*(Ig + eg2*Ag) = 0.5879484m4
de = 0.94m-0.4m = 0.535m
The AASHTO distribution factors for moment are determined using Table 2.2-3 up to Table
2.2-4.
The distribution factor for moment in the interior girder for one lane loaded is.
= 0.06 +
4300
32
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
. . .
2810 2.81 0.5879
= 0.06 + = 0.537 /
4300 24.6 24.6 0.22
The distribution factor for wheel load (i.e. two lines of wheels) is two times the above factor
g = 0.537*2 = 1.074 lane/ girder
The distribution factor for moment in the interior girder for multiple lanes loaded is.
. . .
= 0.075 +
2900
. . .
2810 2.81 0.5879
= 0.075 + = 0.764 /
2900 24.6 24.6 0.22
The distribution factor for wheel load (i.e. two lines of wheels) is two times the above factor
g = 0.764*2 = 1.529 lane/ girder
The distribution factor for moment in the exterior girder for multiple lanes loaded is.
This requires an adjustment factor:
= 0.77 + 1
= 0.77 + = 0.96 1, = 1.0
The adjustment factor for moment is multiplied by the factor for the interior girder and the
result is.
= = 1.0 1.529
g = 1.529 lane/ girder
The distribution factor for moment in the exterior girder for one lane loaded is.
As per Table 2.2-6 distribution factor for moment in the exterior girder for one lane loaded is
computed using lever rule method. This is done by assuming the Slab (Deck) is simply
supported by each girder except over the exterior girder where the cantilever is continuous.
33
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
The reaction at RE taking moment at RI

2.81*RE = P*3.04+ P*1.24
RE = 1.523*P
g =1.523 lane/ girder
The distribution factor for shear using Table 2.2-5 for the interior girder with one lane
loaded is.
= 0.36 +
7600
2810
= 0.36 + = 0.730
7600
The distribution factor for wheel load (i.e. two lines of wheels) is two times the above factor.
g = 2*0.730 = 1.459 lane/ girder
The distribution factor for shear for the interior girder with multiple lanes loaded is.
= 0.2 +
3600 10700
= 0.2 + = 0.912
g = 2*0.912 = 1.823 lane/ girder
The distribution factor for shear using Table 2.2-6 for the exterior girder with one lane
loaded is. The table recommend to use lever rule for one lane loaded case
Therefore, the distribution factor is the same as for moment case above.
g = 1.523 lane/ girder

The distribution factor for shear for the exterior girder with multiple lanes loaded is.
This requires an adjustment factor.
34
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
= 0.6 +
3000
535
= 0.6 + = 0.778
3000
g = 0.778*0.912 = 0.710
g = 2*0.710 = 1.419 lane/ girder
The T-Girder Bridge illustrated in the above typical section drawing with a simply supported
span of 24.6m is used. Model the entire bridge as a single beam to determine the support
reactions, shears, and bending moments using the design truck load.
A free body diagram is shown below with the design truck positioned near the critical
location for shear and bending moment.
NB. The absolute maximum value is a little greater than this but for comparison purpose the
vehicular live load is placed at the middle of the span for easiness throughout this thesis.
Figure 3.3-2 Load Arrangement for Maximum Shear and Moment,
35
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
Table 3.3-1 Approximate (Distribution Factor) Method Results.
Girder Number Simple Moment Girder Simple Shear Girder

Location of Lanes Beam Distribution Moment Beam Distribution Shear
Loaded Moment Factor (g) (KNm) Reaction Factor (g) (KN)
(KNm) (KN)
Exterior 1 806.3 1.523*1.2 1473.6 143.7 1.523*1.2 262.6

Exterior 2 806.3 1.529*1 1232.8 143.7 1.419*1 203.9
Interior 1 806.3 1.074 866.0 143.7 1.459 209.7
Interior 2 806.3 1.529 1232.8 143.7 1.823 262.0
3.4 Grillage analogy method using STAD. Pro program

The grillage modeling and analysis performed in this study were done using a general
purpose structural analysis and design program, STAD. Pro is a commercial structural
analysis and design program developed by Bentley Solutions Center. The program is
available for personal computer. The analyses in this thesis were performed using STAD. Pro
Version 2007.
In this section illustrative analysis is presented considering 10.3m bridge width and 24m
bridge span (length) similar to the typical section shown in section 3.3, using Grillage
Analogy Method.
The first step in grillage analysis is, converting the bridge deck structure in to a
network of rigidly connected beam at discrete node. The following figure shows the
details of bridge deck having T-Girder with nine longitudinal grid lines, out of this
four are along the center of the girders are chosen. Thirteen transverse grid lines are
chosen at variable spacing as shown below.
36
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
Figure 3.4-1 Grillage Mesh and Types of its Member,
After the actual bridge structure is simulated in to equivalent grillage, consisting of

longitudinal and transverse grid lines meeting at discrete nodes, the second important
step is to assign appropriate elastic properties i.e. flexural and torsional stiffness to
each member of the grillage so idealized.
37
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
Figure 3.4-2 Type of member in transverse direction.
Figure 3.4-3 Type of member in longitudinal direction,
Table 3.4-1 Flexural and Torsional Moment of Inertia of the section,
Computation of section property in longitudinal direction

Member type Flexural moment of Inertia Torsional moment of Inertial
(m4) (m4)
1 0.00050356 0.00100712
2 0.2504977 0.5009955
3 0.0012467 0.00249341
4 0.2778714 0.5557428
Computation of section property in transverse direction
1 0.1841409 0.3682818
2 0.00181903 0.00363807
Interior Diaphragm 0.2348948 0.4697896
38
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
Figure 3.4-4 Section Property assignment in STAD. Pro software,
The third step is application of loads; grillage analysis requires that the applied loads
be transformed in to equivalent loads at nodes. If the load is applied directly to
element as member loads, then the algorithm inherent in the software should correct
determine the joint load force and moment. If the load is applied within a grillage
panel, the easiest approach in this case is to add another grillage line under the load
called sub grillage. An alternative to this is to refine the mesh to a point where the
simple beam nodal load assignments are viable because the fixed-end torsion and
bending moment are relatively small.
39
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
Figure 3.4-5 Load assignment in STAD. Pro software.
The last step is interpretation of the result, the output obtained from the analysis of
grillage consists of vertical deflection and X and Z rotation of each node, shear force
and torsional moment of each beam element, bending moment at the two ends of each
beam element and reaction at support.
Figure 3.4-6 Result of STAD. Pro software in Graphical Interface,
40
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
Figure 3.4-7 Grillage Analogy Method Results with provision of two diaphragms,
Girder Location Number of Lanes Maximum Girder Maximum Girder

Loaded Moment (KNm) Shear (KN)
Exterior 1 674.1 244.2
Exterior 2 921.8 208.4
Interior 1 614.1 215.8
Interior 2 948.0 287.1
41
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
4 DISCUSSION ON NUMERICAL RESULTS
4.1 Introduction
The analysis process of both T and Box Girder Bridge using approximate and Grillage
analogy method involve output of bending moment, shear and torsion in the girders at
different live load pattern, therefore, to provide the more insight in to the result difference by
the two analysis method comparison were made on T and Box Girder bridge model with
different span length and bridge width, where for T-Girder model a span of 20m and 24m and
bridge width of two lane, four lane and six lane. In addition, 30m span T-Girder analyzed for
comparison purpose. For the Box Girder bridge model a span of 30m and 40m and bridge
width of two lanes, four lanes and six lanes were used. This chapter summarizes and
compares the results of approximate and Grillage analogy method for the five different span
length of the bridge superstructure model. It consists of the following comparison:
Comparison of the result of T-Girder bridge model using the two analysis method
Comparison of the result of Box Girder bridge model using the two analysis method
Study the effect of diaphragm on load distribution.
4.2 Results from approximate method of analysis

In this part, the result for maximum Girder Moment and maximum Girder Shear computed by
approximate method of analysis considering different bridge width (lane width) such as
10.3m, 19.4m and 26.4m, and with a different span (bridge length) of 20m, 24m and 30m for
T-Girder Bridges, and 30m and 40m for Box Girder Bridges are presented.
4.2.1 Results of T-Girder Superstructures

Table 4.2.1-1 10.3m Bridge Width and 20m Bridge span.
Exterior Single 1111.0 257.0
Exterior Multiple 932.6 199.5
Interior Single 665.6 205.2
Interior Multiple 932.6 256.3
42
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________



43
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________



44
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
4.2.2 Results of Box Girder Superstructures

Table 42.2-3 19.4m Bridge Width and 30m Bridge span.


45
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________

4.3 Results from grillage analogy method of analysis

In this part, the result for maximum Girder Moment and maximum Girder Shear computed by
grillage analogy method of analysis using STAD. Pro 2007 structural analysis software are
presented considering different bridge width (lane width) such as 10.3m, 19.4m and 26.4m,
and with a different bridge span (bridge length) of 20m, 24m and 30m for T-Girder Bridges,
and 30m and 40m for Box Girder Bridges, parallel three diaphragm cases are consider to see
the effect of diaphragm on load distribution.
4.3.1 Results of T-Girder Superstructures

Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Number of Lanes
Moment (KNm)
Moment (KNm)
Moment (KNm)
Girder Location
Shear (KN)
Shear (KN)
Shear (KN)
Loaded
Two Diaphragm case Three Diaphragm case Five Diaphragm case

Exterior One 512.3 238.6 439.7 239.1 453.1 237.7
46
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
Exterior Two 713.2 207.9 687.6 214.8 693.3 222.4
Interior One 480.4 196.0 416.1 187.4 432.5 173.5
Interior Two 746.3 267.8 681.1 255.3 701.2 237.8
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Number of Lanes
Moment (KNm)
Moment (KNm)
Moment (KNm)
Girder Location
Shear (KN)
Shear (KN)
Shear (KN)
Loaded

Exterior One 674.1 244.2 586.1 244.3 598.9 242.9
Exterior Two 921.8 208.4 897.1 214.7 900.1 223.2
Interior One 614.1 215.8 524.2 208.0 541.9 191.2
Interior Two 948.0 287.1 852.9 275.3 873.6 254.9

Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Number of Lanes
Moment (KNm)
Moment (KNm)
Moment (KNm)
Girder Location
Shear (KN)
Shear (KN)
Shear (KN)
Loaded

Exterior One 494.9 254.9 412.4 253.7 413.1 250.4
Exterior Two 641.1 228.1 601.7 232.4 591.3 237.7
Exterior Three 668.2 188.8 661.7 197.0 648.2 205.3
Exterior Four 567.3 140.1 576.9 146.7 570.0 152.2
Interior One 389.4 190.1 355.1 179.8 344.9 156.4
Interior Two 641.4 243.7 546.6 226.5 538.5 199.1
Interior Three 696.6 213.5 636.4 199.4 620.8 180.8
Interior Four 602.3 163.1 578.9 155.9 564.1 144.7
47
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Number of Lanes
Moment (KNm)
Moment (KNm)
Moment (KNm)
Girder Location
Shear (KN)
Shear (KN)
Shear (KN)
Loaded
Exterior One 593.5 267 468.2 263.3 467.5 256.3
Exterior Two 780.4 228.7 697.1 234.1 687.6 241.6
Exterior Three 813.1 190 784.4 199.6 765.6 210.5
Exterior Four 695.5 143.1 695.5 150.6 682.5 158.2
Interior One 489.4 193.6 401.3 184.0 400.4 166.0
Interior Two 753.2 244.1 616.4 230.1 614.8 209.7
Interior Three 827.2 209.8 719.4 200.2 725.2 189.4
Interior Four 721.5 161.3 676.0 156.7 669.5 151.4

Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Number of Lanes
Moment (KNm)
Moment (KNm)
Moment (KNm)
Girder Location
Shear (KN)
Shear (KN)
Shear (KN)
Loaded

Exterior One 545.6 266.4 427.1 262.9 432.5 256.3
Exterior Two 697.8 226.7 636.2 233.4 617.3 242.3
Exterior Three 712.1 189.2 698.1 200.1 672.7 211.7
Exterior Four 597.8 142.9 607.1 151.4 588.1 160.0
Exterior Five 628.7 145.2 647.9 149.7 633.9 153.3
Exterior Six 647.1 141.3 669.5 146.1 663 151.8
Interior One 394.9 204.1 373.3 192.4 359.3 171.4
Interior Two 672.1 263.5 541.1 246.3 552.7 221.8
Interior Three 731.6 226.0 642.5 214.0 640.5 200.2
Interior Four 631.2 173.6 590.6 167.6 583.2 159.7
48
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
Interior Five 676.0 174.0 656.5 170.2 646.9 163.6
Interior Six 695.5 174.2 695.5 171.7 689.0 165.9

Number of Lanes
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Moment (KNm)
Moment (KNm)
Moment (KNm)
Girder Location
Shear (KN)
Shear (KN)
Shear (KN)
Loaded

Exterior One 629.3 270.2 489.0 267.6 487.4 261.2
Exterior Two 817.9 235.8 730.7 241.8 712.9 249.6
Exterior Three 848.8 197.3 819.0 207.6 790.6 219.4
Exterior Four 721.5 148.8 728.0 157.7 702.0 166.8
Exterior Five 773.5 147.6 793.0 155.4 767.0 163.2
Exterior Six 799.5 146.8 825.3 152.6 812.5 158.8
Interior One 511.9 204.8 419.8 195.7 414.1 176.9
Interior Two 793.4 265.3 640.8 250.6 636.9 227.4
Interior Three 875.5 229.1 747.5 217.7 750.0 204.2
Interior Four 760.5 176.2 702.0 169.9 695.5 162.5
Interior Five 825.5 176.7 786.5 172.5 780.0 166.6
Interior Six 864.5 177.1 845.0 174.3 838.5 169.3
Table 4.3.1-7 10.3m Bridge Width and 30m Bridge span,

Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Number of Lanes
Moment (KNm)
Moment (KNm)
Moment (KNm)
Girder Location
Shear (KN)
Shear (KN)
Shear (KN)
Loaded

Exterior One 851.8 256.3 691.4 254.2 691.9 251.2
Exterior Two 1150.0 219.2 1070 220.9 1070.0 226.8
Interior One 826.7 228.6 727.7 217.0 726.6 203.6
49
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
Interior Two 1290.0 290.7 1150.0 277.7 1180.0 264.0
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Number of Lanes
Moment (KNm)
Moment (KNm)
Moment (KNm)
Girder Location
Shear (KN)
Shear (KN)
Shear (KN)
Loaded

Exterior One 698.2 258.5 560.2 256.7 528.7 252.6
Exterior Two 915.2 222.5 826.9 225.7 778.1 232.1
Exterior Three 960.5 184.9 909.5 190.7 875.5 198.9
Exterior Four 832.0 138.9 786.5 143.3 786.5 148.8
Interior One 639.4 198.0 609.7 192.1 501.4 179.0
Interior Two 980.4 250.5 930.3 241.9 789.1 227.1
Interior Three 1079.5 216.7 1079.5 210.8 926.5 203.1
Interior Four 949.0 166.7 981.5 163.9 864.5 160.2

Number of Lanes
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Moment (KNm)
Moment (KNm)
Moment (KNm)
Girder Location
Shear (KN)
Shear (KN)
Shear (KN)
Loaded

Exterior One 754.0 268.8 557.8 267.0 549.6 262.7
Exterior Two 980.4 232.3 821.0 236.2 806.2 242.7
Exterior Three 1020.0 193.6 926.5 200.4 901.0 209.7
Exterior Four 877.5 145.9 832.0 151.5 806.0 158.4
Exterior Five 936.0 144.5 910.0 149.4 890.5 155.0
Exterior Six 981.5 143.6 968.5 147.2 955.5 151.5
Interior One 676.0 212.3 526.2 204.5 513.7 187.8
Interior Two 1040.0 270.1 818.3 258.2 803.5 238.3
50
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
Interior Three 1139.0 232.9 960.5 223.8 943.5 212.2
Interior Four 1001.0 178.7 890.5 173.7 877.5 167.7
Interior Five 1079.0 179.1 1007.5 175.8 988.0 171.3
Interior Six 1137.5 176.1 1092.0 174.7 1072.5 173.2
4.3.2 Results of Box Girder Superstructures

Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Number of Lanes
Moment (KNm)
Moment (KNm)
Moment (KNm)
Girder Location
Shear (KN)
Shear (KN)
Shear (KN)
Loaded

Exterior One 590.9 239.5 597.0 239.3 594.8 239.2
Exterior Two 897.2 232.8 901.1 232.6 899.1 232.4
Interior One 819.1 183.5 821.5 183.5 820.4 183.5
Interior Two 1320.0 242.9 1330.0 242.9 1320.0 242.9

Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Number of Lanes
Moment (KNm)
Moment (KNm)
Moment (KNm)
Girder Location
Shear (KN)
Shear (KN)
Shear (KN)
Loaded

Exterior One 788.9 246.2 789.5 246.2 789.2 246.2
Exterior Two 1230.0 241.8 1230.0 241.8 1230.0 241.8
Interior One 1107.6 185.6 1107.5 185.6 1107.5 185.6
Interior Two 1800.0 243.5 1800.0 243.5 1800.0 243.5
51
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Number of Lanes
Moment (KNm)
Moment (KNm)
Moment (KNm)
Girder Location
Shear (KN)
Shear (KN)
Shear (KN)
Loaded
Exterior One 388.2 228.5 406.6 228.4 401.9 228.5
Exterior Two 581.8 229.5 587.9 229.2 581.8 229.2
Exterior Three 663.7 206.1 667.2 205.9 661.3 205.6
Exterior Four 611.7 156.3 613.3 156.1 609.2 155.7
Interior One 499.3 158.8 502.8 158.8 497.6 158.9
Interior Two 772.3 204.0 776.6 203.9 770.0 204.1
Interior Three 909.5 190.1 909.5 190.0 901.0 190.2
Interior Four 851.5 153.3 851.5 153.2 851.5 153.4

Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Number of Lanes
Moment (KNm)
Moment (KNm)
Moment (KNm)
Girder Location
Shear (KN)
Shear (KN)
Shear (KN)
Loaded

Exterior One 496.0 230.4 496.2 230.4 495.8 230.3
Exterior Two 743.2 233.5 743.6 233.4 743.1 233.3
Exterior Three 867.0 211.9 867.0 211.8 867.0 211.8
Exterior Four 819.0 162.1 819.0 162.1 819.0 162.1
Interior One 631.6 162.5 631.4 162.5 631.0 162.5
Interior Two 993.2 207.6 992.9 207.6 992.3 207.6
Interior Three 1190.0 193.1 1190.0 193.1 1181.5 193.1
Interior Four 1137.5 155.5 1137.5 155.4 1137.5 155.4
52
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Number of Lanes
Moment (KNm)
Moment (KNm)
Moment (KNm)
Girder Location
Shear (KN)
Shear (KN)
Shear (KN)
Loaded

Exterior One 400.3 235.3 409.4 235.1 400.7 235.0
Exterior Two 580.1 237.3 588.5 237.0 576.3 236.7
Exterior Three 657.1 215.6 663.1 215.3 650.2 215.0
Exterior Four 601.6 167.0 605.1 166.7 594.4 166.3
Exterior Five 682.5 164.6 682.5 164.3 669.5 163.9
Exterior Six 741.0 159.7 741.0 159.5 734.5 159.0
Interior One 489.7 165.8 489.1 165.8 488.5 165.8
Interior Two 752.3 214.5 751.6 214.5 750.7 214.5
Interior Three 875.5 199.2 875.5 199.2 875.5 199.2
Interior Four 812.5 160.4 812.5 160.4 812.5 160.4
Interior Five 936.0 165.2 936.0 165.2 936.0 165.2
Interior Six 1027.0 62.5 1027.0 62.5 1027.0 62.5

Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Maximum Girder
Number of Lanes
Moment (KNm)
Moment (KNm)
Moment (KNm)
Girder Location
Shear (KN)
Shear (KN)
Shear (KN)
Loaded

Exterior One 481.0 236.9 480.8 236.9 480.4 236.6
Exterior Two 713.5 240.9 713.7 240.8 712.9 240.7
Exterior Three 824.2 221.2 824.7 221.2 823.7 221.1
Exterior Four 767.0 172.9 767.0 173.0 767.0 173.0
Exterior Five 884.0 171.7 884.0 171.7 884.0 171.7
53
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
Exterior Six 981.5 167.3 981.5 167.3 981.5 167.4
Interior One 598.0 168.8 597.6 168.8 596.9 168.8
Interior Two 932.7 216.9 932.2 216.9 931.2 216.9
Interior Three 1105.0 201.5 1105.0 201.5 1105.0 201.5
Interior Four 1046.5 162.2 1046.5 162.2 1046.5 162.2
Interior Five 1222.0 167.1 1222.0 167.1 1222.0 167.1
Interior Six 1371.5 170.0 1371.5 170.0 1371.5 170.0
4.4 Comparison Figures

The analysis result of both T-Girder and Box Girder bridge superstructures are investigated
by comparing the result obtained by approximate method and grillage analogy method of
analysis. The comparison of T-Girder superstructures are presented in the following Figure
4.4-1 to Figure 4.4-9. Figure 4.4-10 to Figure 4.4-15 shows the comparison of Box Girder
superstructures respectively.
Figure 4.4-1 Comparison for 10.3m Bridge Width and 20m Bridge Span of RCTG,
54
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
Figure 4.4-2 Comparison for 10.3m Bridge Width and 24m Bridge span of RCTG,
55
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
56
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
57
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
Figure 4.4-8 Comparison for 19.4m Bridge Width and 30m Bridge Span of RCTG
58
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
Figure 4.4-10 Comparison for 10.3m Bridge Width and 30m Bridge Span of RCBG,
59
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
60
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
61
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
4.5 Discussion of the results
Results at the two analysis method are used to compare the maximum bending moment and
maximum shear force for both superstructures types. Since this study is to analyze, study the
result difference and effect of diaphragm on load distribution, the following comparison of
the two methods are made:
4.5.1 Comparison of T-Girder Bridge of the two method

Details of the comparison tables are presented in the previous section. To compare the results,
taking the maximum value for both exterior and interior girder from different number of lane
loaded case and summarized in the table below.
Table 4.5-1 Summary of Maximum Values for T-Girder,
Superstructure Moment Shear (KN) Approximate Grillage % difference.

Type (KNm) Method analogy
Method
10.3m width Exterior 1111.0 713.2 36%
and 20m span. Interior 932.6 746.3 20%
Exterior 257.0 239.1 7%
Interior 256.3 267.8 -5%
10.3m width Exterior 1409.6 921.8 35%
Exterior 263.7 244.3 7%
Interior 263.0 287.1 -9%
19.4m width Exterior 1179.4 668.2 43%
Exterior 272.7 254.9 7%
Interior 232.9 243.7 -5%
19.4m width Exterior 1495.8 813.1 46%
Exterior 279.8 267.0 5%
Interior 238.9 244.1 -2%
26.4m width Exterior 1188.1 712.1 40%
62
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
Method
Exterior 274.7 266.4 3%
Interior 248.6 263.5 -6%
26.4m width Exterior 1506.9 848.8 44%
Exterior 281.9 270.2 4%
Interior 255.1 265.3 -4%
10.3m width Exterior 1850.2 1150.0 38%
Exterior 269.5 256.3 5%
Interior 270.4 290.7 -7.5%
19.4m width Exterior 1867.9 960.5 49%
Exterior 272.1 258.5 5%
Interior 247.1 250.5 -1.4%
26.4m width Exterior 1941.5 1020.0 47%
Exterior 282.8 268.8 5%
Interior 262.3 270.1 -3%
It can be noted from the above table that Approximate Method of analysis gives higher value
for moment. Such that in exterior girder average of 42% and interior girder average of 21%
gives more value than Grillage Analogy Method of analysis. Whereas for shear gives slightly
higher value for exterior girder (average 5%) and gives slightly lower value for interior girder
(average 5%) than Grillage Analogy Method of analysis.
4.5.2 Comparison of Box Girder Bridge of the two method

Details of the comparison tables are presented in the previous section. To compare the results,
taking the maximum value for both exterior and interior girder from different number of lane
loaded case and summarized in the table below.
63
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
Table 4.5-2 Summary of Maximum Values for Box Girder,

Method
10.3m width Exterior 1321.1 901.1 31.8%
and 30m span. Interior 1564.1 1330 15%
Exterior 269.5 239.5 11.1%
Interior 279.5 242.9 13.1%
10.3m width Exterior 1851.5 1230.0 33.6%
and 40m span. Interior 2042.4 1800.0 12.0%
Exterior 276.3 246.2 10.9%
Interior 286.5 243.5 15.0%
19.4m width Exterior 1281.4 667.7 47.9%
Exterior 272.1 229.5 15.7%
Interior 249.0 204.1 18.0%
19.4m width Exterior 1795.9 867.0 51.7%
Exterior 278.8 233.5 16.2%
Interior 255.2 207.6 18.7%
26.4m width Exterior 1360.8 741.0 45.5%
Exterior 282.8 235.3 16.8%
Interior 268.8 214.5 20.2%
26.4m width Exterior 1907.1 981.5 48.5%
Exterior 289.9 240.9 16.9%
Interior 276.1 216.9 21.4%
It can be noted from the above table that Approximate Method of analysis gives higher value
for moment. Such that for exterior girder gives average of 43.2% and for interior girder gives
average of 11.7% more value than Grillage Analogy Method of analysis. In addition for shear
64
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
gives average of 14.6% for exterior girder and 17.7% for interior girder than Grillage
Analogy Method of analysis.
4.5.3 Diaphragm effect

From the details of analysis result using Grillage analogy method presented above the effect
of diaphragm on load distribution is observed for T-Girder. However, in Box Girder the
effect is small because of closeness of flexural and torsional stiffness of diaphragm and
nearby grillage member. Typical load distribution figure is shown below for 26.4m Bridge
Width and 30m Bridge Span.
Figure 4.5-1 Typical Load Distribution on Exterior Girder,
From the above chart, The Moment received by one girder is different with respect to number
of loaded lane as the number of diaphragm (bracing) provided is more. The percentage
difference of the above load distribution figure is shown in table below as compared to two
diaphragm case considered.
65
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
Table 4.5-3 Typical Diaphragm effect on Load Distribution as Compare to Two Diaphragm
Case for Exterior Girder of 26.4m Bridge Width and 30m Bridge Span,
No. of Loaded Lanes 3 Diap. Case 5 Diap. Case 9 Diap. Case

1 26% 27% 30%
2 16% 17% 23%
3 9% 11% 17%
4 5% 8% 12%
5 3% 5% 8%
6 1% 3% 5%
From the above table provision of more number of diaphragms has a considerable effect on
load distribution. However, the effect is different with the number of loaded lane as shown in
the above table.
66
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Conclusion
Based on the result obtained from Approximate and Grillage Analogy analysis methods, the
following conclusions and recommendation are made:
It is observed from the result that Approximate Method of analysis gives higher
results for Moment irrespective of the Bridge width and Bridge span for T-Girder and
Box Girder superstructures.
Comparison of the results obtained from Approximate Method of analysis for Shear
gives slightly less value for Interior girder than Grillage Analogy Method irrespective
of Bridge width and Bridge span for T-Girder Superstructure whereas for Box Girder
superstructure gives higher values for all cases considered.
In Grillage Analogy Method, effect of diaphragm on load distribution is more
noticeable for T-Girder superstructure as shown in section 4.3, 4.4 and Typical Figure
4.5-1, Table 4.5-3 whereas, in Box Girder superstructure the effect is small or nil as
shown in the detail comparison table presented above in section 4.3 and 4.4.
5.2 Recommendation
It is recommended that, intermittently check the analysis using Grillage Analogy
method, this analysis method can be done in any commercially available software like
frame analysis, and easy to use even though time taking.
From all the case, only shear in Interior Girder is underestimated from 2 to 9% range
in T-Girder superstructure by Approximate Method. However, gives conservative
values with a marginal value of 3% for 5 Diap. Case. Therefore the author
recommends to get conservative values with Approximate Method at least five
number of diaphragm must be provided per span.
The author recommends provision of adequate number of diaphragm (bracing) for T-
Girder superstructure, this improve the ability of the cross section to transfer loaded
from one girder to an adjacent one.
Finally the author suggests that such a study shall further be conducted considering
skewness and curve of the cross section.
67
Comparative Study,
__________________________________________________________________________
REFERENCES
1. AASHTO. (2004). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 3rd Edition,
Washington, D.C.
2. “Grillage Analogy in Bridge Deck Analysis” by C.S.Surana and R.Aggrawal.
3. “Design of HIGHWAY BRIDGES An LRFD Approach, 2nd Edition.” By Richard M.
Barker and Jay A. Puckett.
4. “Bridge Engineering Hand Book” Edited by Wai-Fah Chen and Lian Duan.
5. “Bridge Design using the STAAD.Pro/Beava”, IEG Group, Bentley Systems, Bentley
Systems Inc., March 2008.
6. ERA. (2002). ERA Bridge Design Manual.
7. R.Shreedhar, Rashmi Kharde. “Comparative study of Grillage method and Finite Element
Method of RCC Bridge Deck,” International Journal of Scientific & Engineering
Research Volume 4, Issue 2, February-2013, ISSN 2229-5518.
68

Samuel Gezahegne

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Samuel Gezahegne

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Addis Ababa Institute of Technology

School of Graduate Studies

APPROXIMATE AND GRILLAGE ANALOGY METHODS OF

A thesis submitted to the school of Graduate Studies in Partial fulfillment of the

Advisor: Dr. Asnake Adamu

APPROXIMATE AND GRILLAGE ANALOGY METHODS OF

Approved by Board of Examiners

Dr. Asnake Adamu _______________ ____________

Dr. Abreham Gebre _______________ ____________

Dr. Shiferaw Taye _______________ ____________

Dr. Agizew Nigussie _______________ ____________

Name: Samuel Gezahegne.

Place: Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa Institute of Technology.

Date of Submission: April, 2016.

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................. ii

List of Figures ...................................................................................................................... iv

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ v

List of Notations .................................................................................................................. vi

Abstract .............................................................................................................................. vii

1.1.1 T-Girder Bridge Superstructure ........................................................................ 1

1.1.2 Box Girder Bridge Superstructure .................................................................... 2

1.2 Objectives and Scope of the study ........................................................................... 3

1.3 Outline of the Thesis ............................................................................................... 4

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................... 5

2.1 General Approach of Analysis................................................................................. 5

2.2 Approximate method of analysis ............................................................................. 5

2.3 Grillage analogy method of analysis...................................................................... 11

2.3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 11

2.3.2 Stiffness Method Applied to Grillage Analysis ............................................... 13

2.3.3 Transformation of Bridge Deck in to Equivalent Grillage............................... 18

2.3.4 Idealization of Physical Deck into Equivalent Grillage ................................... 19

2.3.5 Evaluation of Equivalent Elastic Properties .................................................... 22

2.3.6 Application of Loads, Analysis, Force Responses .......................................... 25

2.3.7 Interpretation of Results ................................................................................. 27

2.4 Multiple Presence Factor ....................................................................................... 27

3 NUMERICAL MODELING ........................................................................................ 29

3.1 General ................................................................................................................. 29

3.2.1 Width of Bridge ............................................................................................. 29

3.2.2 Minimum Dimensions.................................................................................... 30

3.2.3 Design Depth of Superstructure...................................................................... 30

3.3 Approximate method of analysis ........................................................................... 32

3.4 Grillage analogy method using STAD. Pro program .............................................. 36

4 DISCUSSION ON NUMERICAL RESULTS .............................................................. 42

4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 42

4.2 Results from approximate method of analysis ....................................................... 42

4.2.1 Results of T-Girder Superstructures ............................................................... 42

4.2.2 Results of Box Girder Superstructures............................................................ 45

4.3 Results from grillage analogy method of analysis .................................................. 46

4.3.1 Results of T-Girder Superstructures ............................................................... 46

4.3.2 Results of Box Girder Superstructures............................................................ 51

4.4 Comparison Figures .............................................................................................. 54

4.5 Discussion of the results ........................................................................................ 62

4.5.1 Comparison of T-Girder Bridge of the two method ........................................ 62

4.5.2 Comparison of Box Girder Bridge of the two method .................................... 63

4.5.3 Diaphragm effect ........................................................................................... 65

5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ............................................................ 67

5.1 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 67

5.2 Recommendation .................................................................................................. 67

ERA = Ethiopian Roads Authority.

AACRA = Addis Ababa City Roads Authority.

AASHTO = American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

D.O.F = Degree of Freedom

RCTG = Reinforced Concrete T-Girder

RCBG = Reinforced Concrete Box Girder

Dr. Asnake Adamu ___

Dr. Abreham Gebre ___

Dr. Shiferaw Taye ___

Dr. Agizew Nigussie ___

Kg= n(Ig+eg2 A), where